Short answer. Yes, in effect. Article 1383 makes rescission a subsidiary action, meaning it cannot be instituted except when the party suffering damage has no other legal means to obtain reparation for that same damage. If another legal remedy can make you whole, you generally cannot resort to rescission instead.
What the law says
The action for rescission is subsidiary; it cannot be instituted except when the party suffering damage has no other legal means to obtain reparation for the same.
Civil Code, Article 1383 — Rescission Is Subsidiary. Read the full provision →
What 'subsidiary' means for your rescission claim
Article 1383 defines rescission's place among your available remedies: the action for rescission is subsidiary; it cannot be instituted except when the party suffering damage has no other legal means to obtain reparation for the same. Being subsidiary means rescission is a last-resort remedy, not a first choice among equally available options. Before you can properly bring an action to rescind, you need to be in a position where no other legal avenue exists that could actually repair the harm you suffered.
Why the law reserves rescission for when nothing else works
Rescission is a drastic remedy because it can undo a contract entirely, unwinding what the parties agreed to and restoring them, as far as possible, to their original positions. Because unwinding a completed transaction can be disruptive, especially for third parties who may have relied on it, the law prefers that a wronged party first pursue remedies that address the harm without necessarily undoing the entire contract, reserving rescission for situations where those other avenues genuinely cannot make the injured party whole.
What counts as an 'other legal means' that blocks rescission
If you have a separate and adequate way to recover for the damage the contract caused you, such as an action for damages, specific performance, or another remedy that actually addresses your loss, that alternative generally needs to be considered before rescission becomes available. The key question is not simply whether another remedy theoretically exists somewhere in the law, but whether it can actually provide you reparation for the same damage you are trying to address through rescission.
What this means before you file
Before pursuing rescission, it is worth carefully assessing whether any other legal remedy is realistically available to repair the harm the contract caused you. If such a remedy exists and can genuinely make you whole, Article 1383 stands as an obstacle to bringing the rescission action instead. If, after that assessment, no other adequate legal means exists, rescission is the remedy the law reserves for exactly that situation.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Khe Hong Cheng, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 144169, March 28, 2001 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Congregation of the Religious of the Virgin Mary, etc. vs. Emilio Orola, et al, G.R. No. 169790, April 30, 2008 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Anchor Savings Bank (formerly Anchor Finance and Investment Corporation) vs. Henry H. Furigay, et al, G.R. No. 191178, March 13, 2013 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Dr. Restituto C. Buenviaje vs. Spouses Jovito R. and Lydia B. Salonga, et al, G.R. No. 216023, October 5, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →